Arthur Rutland v. R & R Trailers, Inc.
21-1181
| 6th Cir. | Oct 18, 2021Background
- Rutland bought an R & R trailer with a rear door/ramp assisted by a torsion-rod double-spring system; the trailer had a warning to keep body parts away from cables and to have repairs done by experienced personnel.
- He used the trailer for about ten years without incident.
- While inside the trailer in 2018, Rutland noticed an electrical wire resting on the right-side torsion spring/bracket; when he grabbed/moved the wire, the bracket detached, the spring system released, and Rutland sustained severe hand, shoulder, and knee injuries.
- Rutland sued R & R in federal court under Michigan product-liability law (negligent product defect). Both sides moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to R & R, concluding Rutland had misused the trailer (contrary to warnings) and that such misuse was not reasonably foreseeable; Rutland appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rutland’s conduct constituted "misuse" under Michigan law | Rutland disputed causation of bracket failure and argued the weld was negligent, implying no misuse | R & R argued Rutland’s touching/moving of the wire and bracket was misuse (contrary to warnings) that caused the injury | Court held Rutland’s actions amounted to misuse and he forfeited challenge by not addressing misuse below |
| Whether the misuse was reasonably foreseeable | Rutland implied foreseeability by pointing to negligent welding and expert reports | R & R argued it was not reasonably foreseeable a user would ignore warnings and tamper with the spring/bracket | Court held misuse was unforeseeable; statutory rule bars liability for unforeseeable misuse |
| Whether Rutland preserved argument on misuse for appeal | Rutland contended he attacked causation and presented expert evidence, and later raised misuse in reconsideration motion | R & R argued Rutland never addressed the misuse theory in his summary-judgment response and thus forfeited it | Court held Rutland forfeited the misuse argument because he failed to raise it in the district-court response (reconsideration too late) |
| Causation: did Rutland’s action cause the weld/bracket to fail, or did a negligent weld cause failure independently? | Rutland’s experts said weld was negligent and a properly welded bracket wouldn’t fail from touching the wire | R & R argued Rutland admitted moving the wire caused the bracket to come out; even a negligently welded bracket failed because of his movement | Court concluded evidence showed Rutland’s grabbing/moving of the wire caused the bracket to dislodge, so his misuse was the proximate cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Iliades v. Dieffenbacher N. Am. Inc., 915 N.W.2d 338 (Mich. 2018) (describing foreseeability inquiry for misuse under Michigan product-liability statute)
- Armstrong v. City of Melvindale, 432 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 2006) (failure to present issue below forfeits appellate review)
- Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trs., 980 F.2d 399 (6th Cir. 1992) (nonmoving party must identify record facts opposing summary judgment)
- Franklin Am. Mortg. Co. v. Univ. Nat’l Bank of Lawrence, 910 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2018) (summary-judgment standard / de novo review)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2008) (discretion to excuse forfeiture is reserved for exceptional circumstances)
- Evanston Ins. Co. v. Cogswell Props., LLC, 683 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2012) (arguments raised first in reconsideration are untimely and forfeited)